I've given up trying to take something light. Now I just grab one of the big SLRs and either 50 or 90, the one which is not mounted has a chance to go into my pocket. A big SLR (Nikon, or Canon pro model) with a 50/1.8 is very fast and pleasant to use.

Interestingly I've found that whether people get angry with me for taking pictures depends more on my haircut than on the camera.

... taking the Sony and leaving a DSLR body and 2-3 lenses at home sure as heck liberates my shoulders...!

But as I have said several times, there is the middle way of taking a camera body with a single lens attatched.

To answer Telecaster:a) my first few years with an SLR were with a single lens, a 50mm. I found this rather limiting, but in those days my budget rather than my back was the biggest limit.b) some years later, I made do with just a 28-105 for several years on my last film SLR, unwilling to buy more lenses until I decided what to do about this new digital thing. That was mostly quite satisfactory, and I am still happy most days with a single lens --- but I almost always want it to be a zoom, like the 12-50 on my E-M5. That kit keeps my back very happy.

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.

RFPhotography

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.

Haven't read a lot of good things about the M. And philosophically I don't think I could buy a Canon product again.

If you are looking for an affordable, but still very good, sort of compact camera with large sensor (albeit not FF), look no further than the Canon EOS M plus the 22 f/2 lens (equivalent to 35mm in FF). Much cheaper than the Sony and the Fuji X100S.

Once you accept the EOS-M's sensor size and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory), lots of other options arise, like even the cheapest NEX models, 3N and 5R. And why would someone contemplating paying $2,800 for the RX1 choose instead to pinch pennies on the now heavily discounted EOS-M rather than paying a bit more for something like a Fujifilm X model, or a high end NEX with EVF, which have a far more impressive selection of lenses that are designed for and function well with the bodies?

RFPhotography

It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?

Quote

and complete lack of EVF (not even available as an accessory)

The lack of a viewfinder, optical or electronic is a killer, even optional in the shoe (as with the RX1). Problem with a shoe option is no way to link it to the angle of view of the lens, unless it were electronic and signals were sent through the shoe contacts in some fashion.

If I were going to go for an exchangeable lens option in a smaller, 'streetable', carry around camera, I'd probably look at the X Pro 1, X-E1 or the Nikon 1 (despite its smaller sensor), the Nex line, or maybe M4/3 although some of those are a bit larger.

The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint. It can be seen both ways. Limiting and liberating. Also challenging from the standpoint of testing one's ability to create compelling images with a single lens. Who isn't up for a challenge?

I just picked up a 'Texas Leica' for not a bad price to mess around a bit with MF film again. Same consideration wrt a fixed lens. There were plenty of those sold 'in the day', in a variety of formats.

It's an APS-C sensor, so there really isn't a whole lot to 'accept', is there?

The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Quote

The idea of being limited by a single focal length is, as others have said, a misleading viewpoint. It can be seen both ways. Limiting and liberating.

I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)

2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 12:18:17 PM by BJL »

Logged

RFPhotography

The topic of this thread is the RX1, and one of its main selling points is that is has a 36x24mm sensor rather than the 60% smaller "1.6x crop" "APS-C" sensor of the EOS-M: of course there is an issue of whether people contemplating the RX1 would accept any such "APS-C" alternative.

Yes, but, as with many discussions it has morphed and mutated into something broader and includes discussion of other options.

Quote

I keep asking this and no-one answers:

1) How is a permanently attached lens any more "liberating" than fitting a system camera body with a single lens?(Which many of us have done from time to time over the years.)

It's not the camera system. At least, I don't look at it that way. It's the idea of a single focal length lens.

Quote

2) How is

a) owning a fixed lens cameras and also another system camera with multiple lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry just the fixed lens camera

any more liberating than

b) owning just the a system with several lenses, and sometimes _choosing_ to carry that camera with just one lens?The "Devo" argument that "freedom from choice is what you want " clearly fails in this scenario, due to the same level of choice involved in both options.

The only liberation I see from a permanently fixed lens design is through reduction in weight or cost or such -- which the RX1 offers in comparison to other current options with its sensor size, but not if APC-S size is acceptable.

I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight. It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition. You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens. That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.

It's not the camera system. At least, I don't look at it that way. It's the idea of a single focal length lens....I can't speak for anyone else but in terms of liberating, it's not just weight. It's somewhat freeing to be unburdened by the choice of focal length for composition. You have a single choice which frees you to concentrate on the actual image and not the multitude of ways you could render the scene with different lenses or focal lengths of a zoom lens. That's also the challenging aspect of working with a single focal length.

I have no problem with people sometimes wanting to do this; I have even chosen to do it myself, though very rarely. (And I used to do it often, but due to financial limits, not choice.)

But this is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not.

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

RFPhotography

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

I'm not sure anyone is making that argument. At least I'm not. The other considerations, which may be advantages for some, are size/weight and possibly noise. That's where it may be superior to carry the small camera with the fixed lens. Smaller, lighter and in some cases extremely quiet to silent. Good for situations where some measure of unobtrusiveness is a benefit.

Leica M(3,2,4 and finally, 6), Summi(cron,lux)35mm. And one film, tri-x mostly at ASA 400 (does anyone remember ASA instead of ISO?). Does 20 odd years count as an extended period of time? The experience was fine, albeit limiting (but that's the point, isn't it?)

With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted. There was another European measure - Scheiner, or something like that, long-forgotten, of which 27 degrees was equivalent to 400ASA...

Anyone tried comparing prints from an RX100 and comparing to RX1 up to 11*14. I'm amazed at how good the RX100 is. Printed up to about 11*14 it's up there with anything. Crazy but true. Nice files too, not just detailed, great tonality, great colour. Just beautiful. I was going to get an RX1 until I started printing from the RX100 I have and I'm so impressed.

Maybe you and I are in agreement. After all, I was replying originally to allegretto's comment that "There is something also liberating about a fixed lens. No debate about which lens to use and no dust on the mirror" which seemed to be offered as an advantage of the RX-1's lens being permanently attached, not just the idea of sometimes working with only a single fixed focal length lens on one's camera.

So if no-one is actually claiming an advantage for the non-interchangeability of the RX-1's lens, let me return to the original topic of this thread:1. I find that the inability to ever use anything other than one lens of one focal length on a camera costing US$2,800 is a severe disadvantage.2. Compared to current alternatives with a comparable (36x24mm) sensor and lens combination, the RX-1 is for now justified for some users by a significant advantage in size and weight.3. If and when something like a 36x24mm format "NEX" (and matching 35/2 lens) arrives, the RX-1 wil become obsolete, much as did its ancestor the Sony DSC-R1 from the days before Sony made DSLR's.

With much affection. But I seem to remember them running in parallel during the same period, ISO being a European measure and ASA the American which, of course, we all adopted.

Actually, the ISO standard for film speed is simply the adoption and maintenance by the ISO of the standard originally developed in the USA by ANSI (American National Standards Institute), with ANSI being a member of ISO. (The acronym ASA dates back to the earlier name "American Standards Association" for what later became ANSI.) By the way, the ISO film speed standard also includes the alternative logarithmic DIN scale from the German member of ISO (something like "Deutsch Industrie Norm".) So overall, the American (linear) scale eventually dominated over the European (logarithmic) one, not the other way around.

Are you seriously nostalgic over a simple name change for the same standard?

... But this is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not.

My disagreement is with the separate claim that it is somehow superior for it to be impossible to ever change that lens on any occasion.

The advantage of limited choice (including none) are one of those things in life that some intuitively grasp, while others remain eternally perplexed as to why. One of those things that you either "see the light" or you do not. Explaining it to someone who does not get it is rather futile, hence my reluctance to enter the fray earlier. And I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

However, it has been a subject of numerous serious research papers, books, PhD dissertations, etc, in the fields of economics, psychology, philosophy, behavioral economics, including works (in part) of some Nobel Prize winners for economics (Kahneman). For instance, these books:

We normally assume in America that more options ... will make us happier, but Schwartz shows the opposite is true, arguing that having all these choices actually goes so far as to erode our psychological well-being.

Quote

We are, the author suggests, overwhelmed by choice, and that's not such a good thing. Schwartz tells us that constantly being asked to make choices, even about the simplest things, forces us to "invest time, energy, and no small amount of self-doubt, and dread." There comes a point, he contends, at which choice becomes debilitating rather than liberating. Did I make the right choice? Can I ever make the right choice?

Similar thing happened with the introduction of Leica Monochrom. Hordes of Internet know-it-alls ridiculed the concept with the simple "Ha! With my camera, I can always convert back to b&w in post and so much better" line of reasoning.

But forget psychology and economics for a moment. Let's go back to photography. Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, argued "since forever" for a monochrome sensor, even before Leica came up with one. Basically arguing that the very absence of choice is a good thing, and yes, superior to conversion in post. His eloquent reasoning can be found here:

Well worth a read, but here is one excerpt that seems pertinent to this discussion, given the aggressiveness with which the opposing views are met (emphasis mine):

Quote

Not everybody needs such a thing for their work. Only a small minority of people do. A small minority of those people are artists whose work might enrich the world. (And please, do me a favor hereóif you're not amongst that small minority, have the flexibility of mind to acknowledge that that small minority exists, which is to say that other people might actually want choices you don't happen to want. I've acknowledged you; it's not too much to ask you to acknowledge me.)

Working with a camera that can convert color to B&W is not the same as working with a camera that cannot record color. The latter affects the way you see things when you're out photographing. When you know that B&W is all the camera will do, then you start to ignore colors and see luminances, tonal relationships, surface, and structure. It's a different way of seeing.

Now, let's address directly the line of reasoning that it "is simply a matter of carrying just a camera with a single prime lens, regardless of whether that lens is permanently attached to the body or not."

The question, in case it is a system with interchangeable lenses, immediately becomes a plethora of choices. Ok, which single prime lens? 28, 35, 50? Let's say you firmly know that it should be 35mm. But which 35? In case of Canon, shall that be 35/2 or 35/1.4?? Or perhaps 35mm with IS? How about Mark II version of the same lens? How about versions from third parties: Sigma, Zeiss, etc. And if Zeiss with C/Y mount, which adapter works best with my camera?

But lets say we've overcome all those hurdles and settled on one lens and we happily go around for years or months snapping with it. How could this be worse than just non-interchangable system. Here is why: the very possibility that you can change that lens will slowly eat you from within. Say you acquired Canon 35/2... but then Canon comes with its IS version, which, at the same time, has oh, so much better MTF reading than your lens. Or the new Sigma 35/1.4 which has oh, so cool bokeh. Choices, choices... and temptations.

Anyone tried comparing prints from an RX100 and comparing to RX1 up to 11*14. I'm amazed at how good the RX100 is. Printed up to about 11*14 it's up there with anything. Crazy but true. Nice files too, not just detailed, great tonality, great colour. Just beautiful. I was going to get an RX1 until I started printing from the RX100 I have and I'm so impressed.

I sure agree. I'm glad to have a point and shoot size camera that I actually make prints from. Plus it's just a really likeable camera. The only thing wrong with it is that it's "yesterday's news" and the attention span of the forums have moved on.